Atheist Nexus2016-12-10T01:43:52ZDamien Marie AtHopehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DamienAtHopehttp://api.ning.com:80/files/kZzo8PgK6neQN4AfxW4EG8lio8WXn0XSgqGXhrjLcnz6wFQSa-7LXzOI*ItARRbbgifycjdTrRuWIx0iU2Ci9jHlOgwyAvvH/genericprofilepicture.png?width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1http://atheistnexus.org/group/counteringchristianclaims/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=1vgjrj1z0mukf&feed=yes&xn_auth=noHelp with Apologetics: Food Hygiene and The Bible.tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-12-04:2182797:Topic:10448562010-12-04T01:59:08.446ZDamien Marie AtHopehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DamienAtHope
<div style="text-align: left;">Am having a rousing discussion about spirituality on another website and have just been presented with this by an apologist for Christianity.<br></br><br></br><br style="font-style: italic;"></br><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Starting with the Old Testament there are many rules, including many having to do with cleanliness and certain foods to eat. If you look back in time, many of those rules make sense for the times. Without …</span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">Am having a rousing discussion about spirituality on another website and have just been presented with this by an apologist for Christianity.<br/><br/><br style="font-style: italic;"/><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Starting with the Old Testament there are many rules, including many having to do with cleanliness and certain foods to eat. If you look back in time, many of those rules make sense for the times. Without refrigeration shellfish would have had a tendancy to go bad quickly. It may have simply been easier to say, Thou shalt not eat shellfish. Rather than attempting to say Thou shalt not eat shellfish if it has been out of the water and exposed to tempatures in excess of 40 degress Fahrenheit for more than 3 hours, at which time it might have gone bad.</span><br style="font-style: italic;"/></div>
</div>
<br/><br/>I'm fairly sure, I've heard Hitchens ridiculing this line of argument that the bible is this benign list of good hygiene recommendations, and was about to set off down a similar line of dismemberment.<br/><br/>However given the lateness of the hour and that I shan't have to reply until at least tomorrow, I thought I'd see some advice and any good ideas on what is wrong with this.<br/><br/><br/>For context, the rest of the argument goes along the lines of: the shellfish thing being a bit of a segue and occuring in the middle of the following: "The bible says we should kills gays but we eat shellfish therefore Jesus is real and loves everyone even the gays."<br/><br/>Bring your sharpest pointy sticks of barbed argument and come help me build the tiger trap of rationality <br/> Help with a claim made by my cousin?tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-10-17:2182797:Topic:10058552010-10-17T23:00:02.754ZDamien Marie AtHopehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DamienAtHope
Hello, all... My cousin is a post-doc in computer science. He is a Christian, specifically a Quaker. A while ago, he and I got into a discussion about atheism, religion, etc. He claims that the existence of the supernatural (he didn't go so far as to say "god" or "the Christian god") is provable. Here's what he had to say below...<br></br><br></br>You're going to have to do some serious reading here, but if you're actually interested in challenging your faith and embracing free thinking, here is…
Hello, all... My cousin is a post-doc in computer science. He is a Christian, specifically a Quaker. A while ago, he and I got into a discussion about atheism, religion, etc. He claims that the existence of the supernatural (he didn't go so far as to say "god" or "the Christian god") is provable. Here's what he had to say below...<br/><br/>You're going to have to do some serious reading here, but if you're actually interested in challenging your faith and embracing free thinking, here is where you should start:<br/><br/>"An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata" by Peter Linz<br/>ISBN-13: 978-0763737986<br/><br/>Mizzou probably has it in their University book store. You need this to understand the fundamental limits of computation. Once you get this, I'd suggest the following shorter reads:<br/><br/>"An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory" by Alonzo Church<br/>"On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem" by Alan Turing<br/><br/>You can find copies of these at the following locations for free:<br/><a href="http://phil415.pbworks.com/f/Church.pdf">http://phil415.pbworks.com/f/Church.pdf</a><br/><a href="http://www.math.uic.edu/~vladot/mcs441/turing36.pdf">http://www.math.uic.edu/~vladot/mcs441/turing36.pdf</a><br/><br/>Don't even attempt these until you understand Linz's book, however, as you lack the f...undamental background required at the moment.<br/><br/>Also, and probably better than jumping right into Church/Turing is to read<br/><br/>"Introductions to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation" by Hopcroft, Ullman, etc (they add new authors each addition)<br/>ISBN-13: 978-0321462251<br/><br/>This also should be obtainable from Mizzou's bookstore and/or library. It's a pretty standard text book.<br/><br/>Chomsky's original paper on language models might also be helpful and can be found here:<br/><a href="http://www.chomsky.info/articles/195609--.pdf">http://www.chomsky.info/articles/195609--.pdf</a><br/><br/>Once you finish this set, come back to me and we'll talk about how to link this with the concepts I'm talking about if it hasn't become apparent already. Turing connects a lot of it for you, but there are several other authors who build up...on it.<br/><br/>There is not, to my knowledge, an accessible to laymen guide to these concepts.<br/><br/><br/>So I'm hoping that someone on here has read some of these titles/also has a degree in computer science and can help this layman try to figure out exactly what he's talking about and where he might be drawing his conclusions from so that I can actually try to competently refute him... For Your Consideration, Use or Comment: A Logical Disproof of the Biblical God Concepttag:atheistnexus.org,2010-02-28:2182797:Topic:7430732010-02-28T20:36:54.963ZDamien Marie AtHopehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DamienAtHope
A version of the following disproof entitled The Biblical God Concept - Nullified has been published in The Freethinker which is the online magazine of the Science and Rationalists' Association of India:<br></br>
<br></br>
The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is solely in the interest of enlightenment to the good.<br></br>
<br></br>
It involves only three…
A version of the following disproof entitled The Biblical God Concept - Nullified has been published in The Freethinker which is the online magazine of the Science and Rationalists' Association of India:<br/>
<br/>
The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is solely in the interest of enlightenment to the good.<br/>
<br/>
It involves only three definitions, each of which is self-evident. One is of a being, a second is of worship and the third is of a Biblical type god.<br/>
<br/>
The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality. Of course Descartes defined himself as this type of entity on the basis of obviousness. Very exactly, in that we have no way to test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality we cannot know whether they do. Additionally, however, our experiences suggest that when we dream or hallucinate we internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality. Accordingly, especially with empirical suggestions that we sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality, we cannot rule out that it is our nature to do so all of the time. Therefore, our definition of a being is self-evident.<br/>
<br/>
The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist. In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.<br/>
<br/>
The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.<br/>
<br/>
We shall proceed with a logical technique that utilizes reductio ad absurdum. That is, we shall first assume that a Biblical type god exists and from this using only logic arrive at a self-contradictory (absurd) proposition. This will leave only that a Biblical type god does not exist and the disproof will be complete. As such, assume that a Biblical type god exists.<br/>
<br/>
By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it. By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so. Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence. However, they are beings. By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions. Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect. In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. Consequently, we have both that the Biblical type god does and does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.<br/>
<br/>
This is the absurdity. Our only alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.<br/>
<br/>
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.<br/>
<br/>
It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed. Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived. Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect. That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate. In this, even supposing that a free desire to be worshiped could be moral, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.<br/>
<br/>
Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.<br/>
<br/>
As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this presentation. It is solely in the interest of enlightenment to the good.<br/>
<br/>
As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey more than that the Biblical god concept is self-contradictory. It is meant to convey that, as our ability to know an external reality (if one exists) is scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature, meaningful development (true personal satisfaction) for us may only be realized in the form of internal rewards. That is, it may only be realized through decisions that afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.<br/>
<br/>
Therefore, in that these all involve goodness of motive, more significantly than that the Biblical god concept is self-contradictory, this presentation is meant to convey that meaningful development must accommodate the personal conscience.<br/>
<br/>
As the personal conscience assesses the appropriateness of subscription to the Biblical god concept it encounters the following: ‘Loving beings are characterized by selflessness, not egotism. They do not wish to be worshiped, narcissistic ones do. They wish to inspire others to be as good even better than they, not render them prostrate. There may be no double standards in the definition of love.’<br/>
<br/>
Accordingly, fully informed and free subscription to the Biblical god concept is unconscionable. Consequently, it is incongruous with meaningful development even apart from the self-contradictory nature of the of the Biblical god concept.<br/>
<br/>
Resultantly, in the interest of intellectual and emotional maturation, subscription to the Biblical god concept should be held repudiated not only in that it involves a self-contradictory notion but, more insistently, in that it cannot in full knowledge and goodness of motive be freely enacted.<br/>
<br/>
John Jubinsky<br/>
MA-Mathematics, CPA "What's so Great about Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souzatag:atheistnexus.org,2009-03-03:2182797:Topic:2439622009-03-03T11:19:53.106ZDamien Marie AtHopehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DamienAtHope
<b>Synopsis:</b><br />
<br />
"Is Christianity obsolete? Can an intelligent person belief the Bible? Has Christianity been disproved by science? <i>New York Times</i> best-selling author Dinesh D'Souza objectively examines the arguments and rhetoric in the current atheist-led debate about God and Christianity. Meeting the atheists' arguments on their own terms, he demonstrates how religious belief can be reconciled with reason and science. The result is a book that challenges the assumptions that people…
<b>Synopsis:</b><br />
<br />
"Is Christianity obsolete? Can an intelligent person belief the Bible? Has Christianity been disproved by science? <i>New York Times</i> best-selling author Dinesh D'Souza objectively examines the arguments and rhetoric in the current atheist-led debate about God and Christianity. Meeting the atheists' arguments on their own terms, he demonstrates how religious belief can be reconciled with reason and science. The result is a book that challenges the assumptions that people have about Christianity and affirms that there really is something great about Christianity."<br />
<br />
<b>Main Arguments:</b><br />
<br />
(to be continued) Zacharias, Ravi. CAN MAN LIVE WITHOUT GOD.tag:atheistnexus.org,2009-02-28:2182797:Topic:2407722009-02-28T18:43:58.620ZDamien Marie AtHopehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DamienAtHope
TITLE: Zacharias, Ravi. CAN MAN LIVE WITHOUT GOD?<br />
<br />
BRIEF SYNOPSIS:<br />
<br />
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:<br />
<br />
CRITIQUES:
TITLE: Zacharias, Ravi. CAN MAN LIVE WITHOUT GOD?<br />
<br />
BRIEF SYNOPSIS:<br />
<br />
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:<br />
<br />
CRITIQUES: McDowell, Josh. EVIDENCE WHICH REQUIRES A VERDICTtag:atheistnexus.org,2009-02-28:2182797:Topic:2407632009-02-28T18:17:18.027ZDamien Marie AtHopehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DamienAtHope
Josh McDowell: “Evidence which demands a verdict”.<br />
<br />
SYNOPSIS:<br />
<br />
[Requires content here]<br />
<br />
CRITIQUES:<br />
<br />
# McDowell shows noticeable confirmation bias (that is, he only selects those passages which appear to support his ideas). By careful "quote mining" he implies that secularists agree with him when in fact they do not. Furthermore, he uses premises to support his conclusions. These, and the connections between them, have been successfully attacked leaveing McDowell no support for his conclusions.…
Josh McDowell: “Evidence which demands a verdict”.<br />
<br />
SYNOPSIS:<br />
<br />
[Requires content here]<br />
<br />
CRITIQUES:<br />
<br />
# McDowell shows noticeable confirmation bias (that is, he only selects those passages which appear to support his ideas). By careful "quote mining" he implies that secularists agree with him when in fact they do not. Furthermore, he uses premises to support his conclusions. These, and the connections between them, have been successfully attacked leaveing McDowell no support for his conclusions. (Lyndall Wemm)<br />
<br />
<br />
# <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081208140958AAIwsdz">http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081208140958AAIwsdz</a><br />
<br />
Here is a quote from this one:<br />
<br />
McDowell claims that he set out to disprove Christianity and I believe that he sincerely thinks that's true about himself. However, I honestly believe that in his heart of hearts, he wanted to believe in Christianity. I say this because I don't see how anyone could be convinced by his "evidence" unless they wanted to believe. When I read the book, I was particularly interested in the section on the prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled. That's why it was recommended to me in the first place. His reasoning is so flawed most of the time that it would absolutely never hold any water with respectable scholars of religion. I believe that if you can't see why McDowell's arguments are flawed, then you just don't want them to be flawed, and as a result, you are not coming from the non-biased mindset that is required when examining evidence. … One should at least listen to any counter-arguments before deciding the verdict. (Heron by the Sea)<br />
<br />
<br />
# <a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9751.htm">http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9751.htm</a><br />
<br />
Here is a quote from this one:<br />
<br />
The most important thing to remember about McDowell is that his "scholarship" is slipshod at best. His obvious mistakes are such blatant examples of dishonesty as to render suspect anything else he says that cannot be easily and thoroughly verified (such as claiming that the sun exists). McDowell likes to fill his books up with obscure, unverifiable, and basically useless claims, which he grabs from whatever source, will help him appear to make his case -- no matter how flimsy the source material may be. The classic example is his use of the Josephus passage in the "Evidence" books; no Christian apologist who is both honest and informed would point to the Josephus passage in making a case for Christianity. (Cliff Walker, 2000)